Topic: GUN / AMMO BAN COMING 7-12-12!

[David]

On July 12 of this year, next month, Hillary Clinton is going to a U.N. meeting to sign and agreement to BAN GUNS IN AMERICA.
This is no joke the pregnant dog is going to sign away our gun and ammo rights and agree ban guns and ammo.

I received a petition from the NRA to stop this socialist pig and protect our gun rights. Please tell everyone you know about this treason and ask them to contact the NRA and sign the petition.

Obama and his band of crooks are going to destroy our nation unless we stand up and kick ass...

[kneedownnate]

Can't be done.  She can sign all the papers she wants, but she alone doesn't have the right or ability to change the constitution with the swipe of a pen. 

[Gixxer Jon]

Can't be done.  She can sign all the papers she wants, but she alone doesn't have the right or ability to change the constitution with the swipe of a pen. 

X2

[IronClad]

Can't be done.  She can sign all the papers she wants, but she alone doesn't have the right or ability to change the constitution with the swipe of a pen. 

This.

I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight

[86bobbedtoy]

i beleive they might make it harder to buy guns, but they cant stop it!
ammo on the other hand might just get taxed to death and go sky high.

we will see, that might be the last draw for americans!

[Zs Confederate Toy]

Lets do this thing already haha. It only took 3% to beat the British during the Revolution....

[Toymin8r]

They can't ban guns but they can make ammo a lot harder to get.   The Obama motto is, "If you can't legislate, regulate instead".  The 2nd amendment does not mention ammunition or projectiles in any way.  Also, due to "environmental" contraints during the manufacturing process and the increased power of the EPA, ammo has already more than doubled in price since Obama took office.   In addition, the EPA is also looking at the environmental impact of spent lead ammunition.

It has already been suggested by some lawmakers to require ammunition manufacturers to put an electronic chip in every bullet that would need to be registered to the owner.   The costs involved in implementing and regulating this would virtually eliminate recreational shooting by anyone but law enforcement...or rich people. 

[David [OP]]

Sorry guys but this story is true. A little research will show this as fact...

Think about this fact, obama has ordered to FAA to prepare for the deployment of up to 30,000 spy drones over the U.S. He also has given Isreal the right to over fly the U.S. with predator drones for the purpose of spying. They are already flying in the midwest and east. Do a google on drone assisted arrests.
Any president that would do this is guilty of high treason and does not care one bit if it is legal or not. He is a traitor, a liar and a non citizen and he wants our nation to fail and will do anything to make it happen.

Before denying this, please do some research.

[4RunnerChevy]

Its not true, without an act of congress, you cannot change the rules.  Maybe ammo, but not arms.  Geez stop the hype.

[86bobbedtoy]

and here I thought I had enough ammo,
well know i think I need more, this is what my new goal is
10,000 223/556
10,000 12 ga mix
5,000 40
5000 22mag
5000 17hmr
100,000 22lr

[junya92toy]

The EPA can not ban lead ammo

[brainlessfool]

The EPA can not ban lead ammo

well I think they could and might just try.

[Toymin8r]

The EPA can not ban lead ammo

Oh yeah?  They already have banned the use of lead ammunition in parts of Commifornia designated as California Condor habitat.

  http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/condor/

[junya92toy]

Thats a califorina ban, not the epa, and it clearly states that the epa can not ban ammo

the Toxic Substances Control Act allows the EPA to regulate "chemical substances" under certain circumstances, but Congress explicitly excluded from regulation any article subject to excise taxes -- including pistols, revolvers, firearms, shells and cartridges.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/27/epa-rejects-calls-ban-lead-ammo-fishing-tackle/#ixzz1xLWAELCS

[4x4steve]

Don't forget, they rammed obamacare down our throats, How many of you wanted that? I've heard one of Obama's billionaire friends, has been buying the weapon manufacturing companies. This is for the purpose of controlling them. They can shut them down when they are ready to control us.  And if they retain the patent on them, nobody else can make them.                                                                                                                                                               Just some food for thought.  All is not as it appears. If you don't believe, you will just be surprised when it happens, and your shorts are around your ankles.

[86bobbedtoy]

say what you will.
better to be prepared and not need it, than to need it and not be prepared. period!

so I did buy 100 more 40s
and 1500 22s

I feel they may try to tax the lead,
and brass prices are still on the rise
and the fact that national security has ordered so much ammo.
what really gets me is why don't the manufacture there own??

I'm not a tin hat kinda guy, just well educated   

[junya92toy]

Because they will also ban the tools and components that let you make your own rounds too.

[86bobbedtoy]

Because they will also ban the tools and components that let you make your own rounds too.

exactly but i meant why dosent the government make there own?
it would be alot cheaper on our tax dollas anyway!

[junya92toy]

Money, duh

[46&2]

If they tried to force all manufacturers to produce all lead free ammo, it would collapse the industry. It is just not cost effective in manufacturing nor transfering that cost to the consumer. It could never happen, and if it did, I think we'd have been long on our way to taking back our country at that point.

Environmentalists recently tried to get the ball rolling with the EPA and lead bans again and the EPA basically told them no. I can't find the link, I read about it on PBB the other day.

[Rocksurfer]

EPA Surrenders on Lead Bullet Ban

6:38 AM, Aug 28, 2010 • By JOHN MCCORMACK


In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn't have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue. The decision came just hours after the Drudge Report posted stories from Washington Whispers and the Weekly Standard about how gun groups were fighting the lead bullet ban.



Yes it was an issue a few years ago and the EPA rejected it, haven't heard that it is one again.

[Rocksurfer]

If lead bullets are banned, it could compromise self-defense

By John Lott

Published March 16, 2012

FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/16/if-lead-bullets-are-banned-there-will-be-real-health-hazards/#ixzz1xNFoVLPy

Lead poisoning from bullets? Sounds scary, but the push by the Center for Biological Diversity in a petition to the EPA is nothing new. The claim has been brought up many times, and even the EPA during anti-gun Clinton administration dismissed the fears about traditional, lead ammunition.

The lead in ammunition has never been shown to produce any health hazards, but a ban would produce a real health hazard, making it much more difficult for people to use guns to defend themselves.

During the Clinton administration, when the risks of lead ammunition were seriously debated, the EPA found no cause for concern. Research by William Marcus, Senior Science Advisor in the EPA's Office of Science and Technology, in a letter dated December 25, 1999, stated his findings: the claim that "lead based ammunition is hazardous is in error." Lead on the soil surface "does not break down. . . . [it] does not pose an environmental or human hazard. . . . In water lead acts much the same as in soil . . . ." The hazards don't exist for indoor shooting ranges any more than they do for outdoor ranges.

Eating food shot with lead ammunition isn't a problem. A 2008 study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which conducted blood tests on 736 hunters, found that lead ammunition produced very small changes in lead exposure, with concentrations well below CDC benchmark levels of concern, and posed no discernible risk to human health.

"There are safe, available alternatives to lead ammo for all hunting and shooting sports, so there’s no reason for this poisoning to go on," claimed a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity.

But ammunition containing lead, a dense and heavy metal, has a lot of advantages. The increased weight means shots have more stopping power. Try explaining to a small five-foot woman why she shouldn't be concerned about the stopping power of bullets when a six-foot tall, 200-pound man is charging towards her.

The lighter ammunition has less momentum, and the longer the distance, the less accurate the shots. The non-lead ammunition is much more expensive, frequently costing twice the cost of traditional ammunition. Many guns also have to be redesigned and will be more costly to build. Putting non-lead ammunition into guns designed for lead causes them to wear out much more quickly.

The Obama administration has also looked into this issue before, but the EPA did not make its decision on the environmental merits. The agency instead agreed with the National Rifle Association who explained how Congress had specifically excluded ammunition from the Toxic Substances Control Act which governs potentially harmful materials such as lead.

Based on either the science or the law, this new filing by the Center for Biological Diversity should go nowhere. But whether this might be part of Obama's "under the radar" campaign to reduce gun ownership remains to be seen.

If the Obama administration bans traditional ammunition, the harm will be immediate and clear. You might not be able to protect yourself when you need to the most.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/16/if-lead-bullets-are-banned-there-will-be-real-health-hazards/#ixzz1xNG82mIM

[Wainiha]

I thought the military was already phasing out lead in their ammo.

[junya92toy]

i doubt they are going to ban lead bullets.... what is the military supposed to use at that point?

You do realize this ban would not affect the military right? You do realize this is about disarming the general public?

[86bobbedtoy]

military and L.E. would use what ever they want.

[Snowtoy]

Sec. Clinton doesn't have the authority to agree to or sign any international treaty, only the Pres. does, and then the treaty must still be agreed to by a 2/3's vote in the Senate(2/3's of those present).  Even if the Dems were to pull a fast one and reconvene the Senate with only Dems present and voted to accept the treaty, it still wouldn't effect domestic law.  All Domestic laws have to be agreed to by both houses of Congress and then it has to be signed into law by the Pres., and if it effects the rights of the individual it is up to review by the USSCt.  Since niether tha House of Reps. nor the Supreme Court has the Constitutional authority to review or agree to international treaties, no UN law that directly effects the rights of the individual can ever be enacted here in the U.S.  Sure it could effect buying foriegn weapons or ammo from other Nations that abide by the law, but that will happen regardless of what Pres. Obama or Sec. Clinton tries to sign.

The EPA would have to ban lead from all consumer products before it could be banned from bullets.  I suppose they could claim that spent ammo in high consentrations can leach into ground water, therbye requiring all public/ptivate ranges be cleaned up or shut down.  This could raise the cost of ammo as states levy taxes to cover the clean up costs, but ammo and the means to manufacture it would still available.  Even the idiots Dems here in CA know they can't outright ban ammunition, if they could they would have by now.

[Snowtoy]

what really gets me is why don't the manufacture there own??

By design governement agencies here in the U.S. are banned by law from directly competing with private enterprise.  Our Founding fathers wanted to ensure that government could only regulate the economy, not take direct part in it.

[junya92toy]

Sec. Clinton doesn't have the authority to agree to or sign any international treaty, only the Pres. does, and then the treaty must still be agreed to by a 2/3's vote in the Senate(2/3's of those present).  Even if the Dems were to pull a fast one and reconvene the Senate with only Dems present and voted to accept the treaty, it still wouldn't effect domestic law.  All Domestic laws have to be agreed to by both houses of Congress and then it has to be signed into law by the Pres., and if it effects the rights of the individual it is up to review by the USSCt.  Since niether tha House of Reps. nor the Supreme Court has the Constitutional authority to review or agree to international treaties, no UN law that directly effects the rights of the individual can ever be enacted here in the U.S.  Sure it could effect buying foriegn weapons or ammo from other Nations that abide by the law, but that will happen regardless of what Pres. Obama or Sec. Clinton tries to sign.

The EPA would have to ban lead from all consumer products before it could be banned from bullets.  I suppose they could claim that spent ammo in high consentrations can leach into ground water, therbye requiring all public/ptivate ranges be cleaned up or shut down.  This could raise the cost of ammo as states levy taxes to cover the clean up costs, but ammo and the means to manufacture it would still available.  Even the idiots Dems here in CA know they can't outright ban ammunition, if they could they would have by now.

Its been proven spent lead bullets do not leech anything into ground water so even if they tried it wouldnt work

[David [OP]]

Those of you saying this can't happen should try this link to see what the traitors in the white house are doing behind our backs.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/obama-seeks-us-congressional.html

[BLACKDOG]

Couple points here.

Until the citizens of the US stand up and fight for our right (to party, among other things), We will continue to suffer the threat of gun control and restriction.  There are a few issues with the UN Small Arms Treaty, both legal and societal. 

1) The supreme court ruled in 1957, Reid vs. Covert, that The Constitution of the United States supercedes any international treaties.  This isn't to say that this and other treaties aren't going to affect our accessibility to guns and ammo, but not to the far reaching effects the UN hopes for.

2) In the possibility of confiscation, who would you suggest do the confiscating?  If this issue ever got to the point, we'd quickly cross into the realm of revolution.  One of the main reasons is a large split in the members of our Armed Forces.  A good chunk of them, if not a majority, will refuse to participate in an arms collection.  How would the confiscation be performed?  Turn in points?  I can assure you that none of my weapons would be found there.  And I sincerely doubt that I'm in the minority of gun owners that would take that stance.  Door to door search and seizure?  Lets trample on the constitution some more, not to mention the issue of the manpower capable of doing such a search, as well as the odds of any weapons actually being there.  Hard to keep something on that large of a scale secret.  Plenty of warning for those of us who would stash our guns, or just disappear ourselves. 

3)Per the small arms survey in 2007, the US citizenry owns a little over 1/4 of the worlds guns.  That is around 270 million.  Thats a lot of guns to confiscate, petty much impossible.  The higher likelihood, which many people have already touched on, is an increased attack on ammunition,ability to use the firearms, and firearm accessories.  An AR doesn't do much good if you can't buy the magazines for it.  Its tough to reload your own ammo if you can't obtain the materials, or can only obtain them in small amounts at one time.  If you can't go anywhere to shoot your firearms, your skills diminish, and you become less of a threat (because we are viewed as a threat).

There are several different methods of ammunition stamping being studied, researched, and even implemented in the small scale even now.  All will increase ammo costs significantly, and the results are mediocre at best.  I fully believe we'll see limits on the amount we can purchase at one time, the quality, and the type.